MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413054242 · doi:10.1097/nne.0000000000001947

Competency Framework Development for Genomics Nurse Educators

2025· article· en· W4413054242 on OpenAlexaff
Deborah O. Himes, Jennifer R. Dungan, Sarah Dewell, Sarah Davis, Linda Ward, Ruth F. Lucas

Bibliographic record

VenueNurse Educator · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBRCA gene mutations in cancer
Canadian institutionsThompson Rivers University
FundersInternational Society of Nurses in GeneticsBrigham Young University
KeywordsGenomicsHealth careCompetence (human resources)CurriculumNursingMedical educationEngineering ethicsStakeholderMedicinePsychologyGeneticsPedagogyGenomePolitical scienceEngineeringPublic relationsBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: As genomics becomes increasingly integral to health care, enhancing nurse educators' competence in teaching genomics is vital for sustaining nursing's role in precision health. PROBLEM: Many nurses lack confidence in applying genomics in practice, highlighting the need for improved genomics nursing education. APPROACH: The International Society for Nurses in Genetics convened a steering committee to develop a competency framework defining the role of Genomics Nurse Educators. We applied the Six-Step Model for Competency Framework Development in Healthcare Professions, drawing on targeted literature review and international stakeholder input to draft the framework. OUTCOMES: The resulting framework includes 3 domains and 7 competency areas defining the knowledge, expertise, and leadership required for Genomics Nurse Educators. CONCLUSIONS: The framework advances genomic nursing education globally, transitioning it from an emerging to an evolving specialty; provides a structured pathway for faculty development, supports integration of genomics into curricula, and promotes education of genomics-informed nurses.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.142
Threshold uncertainty score0.849

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.302 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNurse EducatorSame topicBRCA gene mutations in cancerFrench-language works237,207